RAMESH CHANDRA DAS Vs. PREMALATA PATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Both these revisions have been filed by two of the accused persons in a complaint case, namely ICC Case No. 32 of 1983 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Ganjam, Berhampur praying for quashing the order of the learned. Magistrate taking cognizance as against them. Accused No.1 in the complaint case is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No: -146 of 1984 and accused No.3 in the complaint case is the petitioner in the other revision.

(2.) Opposite party No.1 filed a complaint petition on 22-4-1983 against six accused persons alleging therein that accused No.1 married her in the year 1960 without disclosing that he has earlier married and his first wife was still living. The further averment in the complaint is that subsequent to the marriage, between accused No.1 and the complainer, they lived as husband and wife and were blessed with three children and, during that period on the persuasions of accused No. 1, she sold several gold ornament and invested the amount for purchasing some immovable property. After purchase of such property, accused No.1 proposed that the property should be disposed of at a premium to which the complainant also agreed. It was further revealed by accused No.1 that for executing sale deeds, the complainant might not go to the office of the Sub-Registrar and instead might execute a power-of attorney in favour of accused No.2 and accordingly the complainant executed General Power-of-Attorney in favour of accused No.2. On account of accused No.1 not disclosing the factum of earlier marriage to the complainant, some misunderstandings arose and on 17-12-1981, accused No.1 left the company of the complainant and did not visit again. The complainant could later on know that accused. Nos. 1 and 2 with the support of accused Nos. 4, 5 and 6 brought three documents No. 2998/82, 2999/82 and 3000/83 into existence purporting those to be three sale deeds in respect of three plots of land and in those sale deeds the signatures of the complainant had been forged and the documents were presented for registration by accused No.2 knowing fully well that the same were Dot genuine. Accused No.4 was the scribe of the said documents and accused Nos. 5 and 6 were the two attesting witnesses who had assisted in preparation of the said false documents. Coming to know of the aforesaid facts, the complainant cancelled tile General Power-of-Attorney executed by her in favour of accused No.2 and also, made a publication, to that effect in the daily newspaper. It is the further case of the complainant that the accused persons created several documents and gilt them registered in two batches purporting to transfer the property belonging to the complainant in favour of accused No.1 and one document was purported to have been executed in favour of accused No.3, who is the son of accused no. 1 through his first wife. He was asserted that none of the documents were executed by the compliant and her signatures had been forged by the accused persons. On these allegations it was prayed that cognisance be taken against the accused persons under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420, Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The learned Magistrate recorded the initial statement of the complainant on the date of filling on 22-4-1983. After a-plying his mind to the allegations made in the complaint petition as well as the statement of the complainant made in her initial statement, the Magistrate took cognisance under sections 465, 468 and 424, Indian Penal Code, and summoned the accused persons. It is this order of the learned Magistrate dated, 22-4-1983 which is being assailed in both these revisions and a never has been made to Quash the order of cognisance against the petitioners by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.